National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: General and Concurrent Sessions
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Resource Papers." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Resource Papers." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Resource Papers." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Resource Papers." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Resource Papers." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Resource Papers." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Resource Papers." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Resource Papers." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Resource Papers." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Resource Papers." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Resource Papers." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Resource Papers." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Resource Papers." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Resource Papers." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Resource Papers." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Resource Papers." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Resource Papers." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Resource Papers." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Resource Papers." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Resource Papers." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13878.
×
Page 58

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

RESOURCE PAPERS

3 5 RESOURCE PAPER Sustainable Transport Definitions and Responses William R. Black, Indiana University This paper was prepared in response to the twoquestions noted in the conference program: Whatare the ranges of definitions of sustainable trans- portation in practice today? How do these definitions affect how transportation sustainability is addressed? The first requires an inventory approach to what is out there and what has been in fashion in the way of defi- nitions over the past 10 to 15 years. Those looking for consensus will probably not find it here. The second question is a little more difficult, if not impossible, to answer in a precise way. There are two reasons. First, we can’t really say how something is being addressed if we have no general agreement on what it is. Second, the major purpose of this conference is to try to get sustain- ability types of notions into the transport planning process, and this suggests that at least up to now it has not been addressed. Therefore, before we examine the second question we will at least suggest some of the components of a sustainable transport system on the basis of the definitions and other literature. Given this background, we can then suggest some actions that have been taken toward making the transport system sustain- able with regard to these components. SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT: MEANINGS AND RESPONSES It is reasonable to begin the discussion with some com- mon types of definitions of sustainability and sustain- able transport that one might find in a dictionary. This will only yield words such as durable or capable of being maintained and in reality get us nowhere. More than that, it angers some researchers who see these words as having far deeper meanings than I would intend. As a result, moving directly to the definitions may be the most prudent course to take. One of the first uses of the phrase “sustainability” in something approaching the current context was in the so-called Brundtland report of 1987 (United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). That report discussed what was referred to as sustainable development, which was defined as develop- ment that meets the needs of the present without com- promising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. This definition can be extended without major changes to sustainable transport, which may be defined as transport “that meets the current transport and mobility needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet these needs” (Black 1996). This is easy to understand on the surface, but soon we would have to face the fact that the needs are not well specified, and if we could resolve that, we must then stop and imagine how many future generations we are talking about. Another way of expressing these ideas would be to state that sustainable transport represents transport and mobility with nondeclining capital, where capital would include human, monetary, and natural capital (Pearce et al. 1989; Daly 1992). Followed to its logical end, this would imply that natural resources could not be used in the system (sometimes referred to as strong sustainabil- ity) unless they were used to develop additional natural capital (sometimes referred to as weak sustainability).

Daly (1992) does not define sustainable transport but specifies parameters for any sector being sustainable. Within this context transport is sustainable if it satisfies three conditions: (a) the rate at which it uses renewable resources does not exceed their rates of regeneration, (b) the rate at which it uses nonrenewable resources does not exceed the rate at which sustainable renewable sub- stitutes can be developed, and (c) its rate of pollution emissions does not exceed the assimilative capacity of the environment. If we apply Daly’s conditions to the transport systems of the 1700s and 1800s, which are often viewed as sus- tainable, we would find that these systems were on the verge of becoming nonsustainable. The major long-dis- tance transport mode of the 1700s was sailing ships. Although they used renewable wind energy, they were becoming nonsustainable because they were depleting lumber stocks used in their construction and repair (Albion 1965). The typical transport mode of urban areas in the 1800s was the horse–wagon–buggy–carriage system. That system resulted in tens of thousands of horses polluting streams, wells, and streets of these urban areas and obviously exceeded the assimilative capacity of these environments (Lay 1992). It should be apparent that today’s transport systems fail to measure up to Daly’s second and third criteria: today’s systems are consuming fossil fuels (specifically petroleum-based gasoline) at rates in excess of the rate at which an alternative can be produced. Schipper (1996) states that sustainable transport is transportation where the beneficiaries pay their full social costs, including those that would be paid by future generations. He further notes that changes in travel are associated with a number of prominent exter- nalities, including accidents, air pollution, congestion, noise, damage to species habitat, increases in carbon dioxide production, and the importation of oil. It is these externalities, and not transportation or travel per se, that threaten the sustainability of the system, accord- ing to Schipper. Gordon (1995) is less willing to be drawn into a debate over definitions of sustainable transport and states instead that underlying these ideas of sustainable transport are three different visions. The first centers on changing people and the way they live, the second on changing technology, and the third on changing prices (Gordon 1995). In effect, she is proposing, in rather broad terms, what actions are necessary to make the transport system sustainable. Probably in an attempt to be more comprehensive, the Centre for Sustainable Transportation (1998) in Canada states that a sustainable transportation system is one that (a) allows the basic access needs of individuals and societies to be met safely and in a manner consistent with human and ecosystem health, and with equity within and between generations; (b) is affordable, oper- ates efficiently, offers choice of transport mode, and sup- ports a vibrant economy; and (c) limits emissions and waste within the planet’s ability to absorb them, mini- mizes consumption of nonrenewable resources, reuses and recycles its components, and minimizes the use of land and the production of noise. Europeans tend to refer to this notion of sustainable transport as sustainable mobility. Some U.S. groups also prefer the use of this term. The Mobility 2001 report defines sustainable mobility as “the ability to meet the needs of society to move freely, gain access, communi- cate, trade and establish relationships without sacrific- ing other essential human or ecological values today or in the future” (Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Charles River Associates 2001). Transport Canada skirted the definition of a sustain- able transport system and sought instead to define “a more sustainable transportation system” as “one which provides affordable access to freight and passenger ser- vice and does so in an environmentally sound and equi- table manner” (Bell et al. 1997). In later reports Transport Canada has set out to pro- vide a framework that addresses the social, economic, and environmental elements of a sustainable transporta- tion system. More specifically, it seeks the highest practi- cal standards of safety and security, economic efficiency, and respect for the environment so that transport’s “impact on the environment and on the health of Cana- dians is acceptable to current and future generations” (Transport Canada 2003). Greene and Wegener (1997) and Pearce and Warford (1993) define sustainability in economic terms. In this con- text sustainability is holding the sum of the capital stocks of manufactured, human, and environmental assets at least constant to ensure that future generations have the same capability to develop as current generations. Greene (per- sonal communication, June 24, 2004) has further stated that “sustainability is a constraint on the economic system which insists that we do not decrease opportunities for well-being available to future generations below the level we have today. This is an ethical doctrine, and therefore inherently subjective not objective. It defines a new market failure, because future generations cannot participate in the existing marketplace to express their preferences.” Favoring an objective conceptualization of sustain- ability, Black (2002) has asked the question, exactly what is it that makes the current transport system not sustainable? He has concluded that the lack of sustain- ability is due to global atmospheric problems, excessive use of nonrenewable resources by the transport system, excessive fatalities and injuries, local air pollution prob- lems, and system congestion. To operationalize this approach, he made use of indicators in order to identify whether an area’s transport system was sustainable. 3 6 INTEGRATING SUSTAINABILITY INTO THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

There have been several other proposals for the identifi- cation of indicators of sustainable transport, often in the absence of a clear definition of what sustainable transport is. One of the leading efforts in this regard was outlined for the National Science and Technology Council Transporta- tion R&D Committee by Heanue (1997). At the time the indicators under consideration included the following: 1. Market penetration of alternatives to petroleum- based fuels; 2. Transport sector emissions of greenhouse gases; 3. Water quality, number of species endangered, soil protection, and so forth; 4. Acres of revitalized urban area and reclaimed brownfield sites; 5. Trip making and miles traveled (by mode); 6. Reliance on single-occupant vehicles; 7. Access to jobs and services for the transport-dis- advantaged; and 8. Population in areas that attain national atmo- spheric air quality standards. The list includes several variables relating to behav- ioral aspects of travel and transport, perhaps with the idea that voluntary action by drivers may be critical in making the transport system more sustainable. It is not clear how far this effort went, but it involved several agencies of the federal government at the time. Litman (n.d.) proposed a different set of sustainable transport indicators that is based more on personal or household travel characteristics. The following are included in his list of indicators: 1. Average portion of household expenditures devoted to transport; 2. Average amount of residents’ time devoted to nonrecreational travel; 3. Per capita automobile mileage; 4. Ability of nondrivers to reach employment cen- ters or services; 5. Per capita land area paved for roads and parking; 6. Quality of pedestrian and bicycle facilities; 7. Quality of public transit (frequency, speed, safety, and so forth); 8. Special transit services and fares relative to low income; 9. Transit coverage, residents within 0.5 kilometer; 10. Motor vehicle accident fatalities; 11. Per capita transport energy consumption; 12. Medical costs attributable to transport; 13. Publicly financed transport costs; and 14. Residents’ role in transport and land use decisions. Broadly speaking, these are representative of the approaches that have been taken to define or indicate what sustainable transport is. Some of the definitions are narrow, some are broad, and some seek to use indi- cators of the phenomenon, probably with the view of moving toward measurement at some point. NONSUSTAINABLE COMPONENTS OF TRANSPORT It may make sense to identify some of the phenomena that are generally accepted as leading the transport sys- tem away from sustainability. We have done this to an extent, but for those unfamiliar with this area further discussion may be useful. Diminishing Petroleum Reserves It is generally recognized that in the 100 or so years of motor vehicles using gasoline as a fuel, the world has consumed approximately 1 trillion barrels of petroleum for this and other purposes—all of this at a time when only a small proportion of the population of that world had access to such vehicles or other uses for petroleum energy. The major question at this point is, what is the future demand for this fuel and will the Earth be able to supply it? Given that the developing world is expected to increase its demand for energy in transport and other sectors, which has already begun, global demand will increase significantly. What can be said of supplies? The optimist would say that there are about 2 trillion barrels of recoverable conventional petroleum reserves out there. In general, production keeps pace with demand, but if the latter increases significantly, it is likely that additional pro- duction will have to take place. At present consump- tion exceeds new discoveries by more than a 3:1 ratio. Some scholars believe we have found all of the major fields in the world. The discovery of more major fields (perhaps in the South China Sea) will probably only enable the world to fight a delaying action (Deffeyes 2001). Others would say that the conventional sources will not last beyond 2020 and that there is significantly more petroleum out there, but it is found in unconven- tional sources (Greene et al. 2003). Such sources would include shale oil, oil sands, and tar sands. Estimates are that shale oil is substantially more expensive to pro- duce and deliver, while the others have costs that are comparable with those of conventional sources. Depending on what the actual costs are, we will see the slower or faster development of alternative fuels. In the final analysis our current transport systems are nonsus- tainable because at least at present they use a fuel that is finite and nonrenewable. This is true whether we are talking about conventional or unconventional sources of petroleum. 3 7SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT: DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSES

Global Atmospheric Impacts Some researchers believe that humans are placing emis- sions into the atmosphere that will eventually have impacts on the global climate. Others believe these impacts have already begun with increasing global tem- peratures and a rise in sea level. The emissions, some- times called greenhouse gases, may lead to a forcing or an enhancement of the greenhouse effect. This is the effect that under normal conditions enables the planet to sustain enough heat to make it amenable to life. More specifically, the burning of fossil fuels has released sub- stantial amounts of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere, and this will lead to a forcing or an increase in the global average temperature. As of 2001 carbon dioxide concentrations have increased 31 per- cent over levels in 1750. These levels are now higher than they have been in the past 420,000 years (Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change 2001). Trans- portation and the use of petroleum-based fuels are responsible for just over 20 percent of these emissions as of 2003. This is nonsustainable according to the 2004 World Energy Outlook of the International Energy Agency. One might reasonably ask whether the warming will create major problems or will be only a minor inconve- nience. We really don’t know the answer, but the con- sensus is that the negative impacts of only a minor change in temperature could be substantial. There is a tendency among many sectors to want to ignore the impacts on the planet. This may be possible for some sectors, but it is not so easy for transport. The flooding of transit tunnels due to a rise in sea level, the failure of airplanes to take off due to high temperatures, the buck- ling of highways and railroad track due to heat, the flooding of coastal highways and railways, and the sub- mersion of dock facilities are not problems that can be dismissed easily. Even more important is the potential shift in agricultural production to new areas with mod- erate climates and away from areas that are too hot or too dry, which would result in the need to relocate trans- port infrastructure in such areas (Black 1990). Local Air Quality Impacts The contribution of motor vehicle emissions to the problem of poor air quality is significant. This must also be seen as something that makes current transport sys- tems nonsustainable. As of 2000, according to the Bureau of Transport Statistics, mobile sources accounted for 7 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 43 percent of nitrogen oxide emissions, 51 percent of car- bon monoxide emissions, approximately 9 percent of particulates [2 percent of PM10 (particles up to 10 micrometers in diameter) and 31 percent of PM2.5], and 33 percent of volatile organic compounds. A sub- stantial portion of the production of urban ozone also has its origin in mobile sources. The various pollutants must be viewed as contributors to nonsustainability, and they are viewed as such in Europe and by the Organisa- tion for Economic Co-operation and Development (1998). They have not always been viewed as part of the sustainability problem in the United States, but this may be because these problems were and are being addressed. This attitude seems to have changed in recent years. The negative health impacts of these emissions, pri- marily on the human respiratory system, must be viewed as a significant problem that cannot be allowed to con- tinue. The United States has made substantial progress in reducing the significance of these emissions, and some believe they will cease to be a significant problem in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, at this time these emis- sions are one of the factors making transport systems nonsustainable. Fatalities and Injuries It should be an accepted premise that a transport system that kills off its users is not sustainable. However, many policy makers do not want to include fatalities and injuries in the calculus of nonsustainability factors. Indi- cations are that the world’s motor vehicle fleet is respon- sible for nearly 1 million fatalities each year and probably 70 million or more injuries (World Health Organization 2001 as cited by Evans 2003). Global forecasts of fatalities for the next 10 years are almost beyond comprehension. Fatalities per vehicle mile are dropping in the United States, but that is probably due primarily to increases in vehicle miles driven. Until recently total fatalities were also dropping, but the latter appear to be increasing now or at least leveling off. We are no longer sure what is happening with injuries. Congestion Policy makers in general do not view congestion as a major barrier to transport sustainability. Even this con- ference is giving it rather short shrift. The reason is not at all clear, although it may be attributable to the indi- rect nature of the impacts generated. Congestion decreases the speed of vehicles and results in lower fuel efficiency. It increases emissions that are detrimental to both the global and the local environments. It increases motor vehicle incidents, while it decreases fatalities. Per- haps it was viewed as a manifestation of all the other 3 8 INTEGRATING SUSTAINABILITY INTO THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

criteria leading to nonsustainability and its inclusion seen as redundant. Several years ago at a Transportation Research Board annual meeting the following question was asked: If we adopted a renewable transport fuel with zero harmful emissions, would we have a sustainable transport sys- tem? The question was never answered, but it is one that must be asked again. Clearly, if hydrogen was the fuel, our concerns about the depletion of fuel stocks would be removed, as would the problems of global atmospheric impacts and local air quality. Fatalities would also be reduced, since motor vehicle accident fires would be eliminated in the case of a hydrogen fuel. However, we would still have the problem of congestion in urban corridors and increasingly on major Interstate highways, and this, and eventually gridlock, must cer- tainly be viewed as contributing to nonsustainability. So the answer to the question is that even a wonder fuel would not make the transport system sustainable. We would still have congestion, which threatens only to get worse in the coming decades. Noise One major difference between sustainable transport in the United States and sustainable mobility in Europe is the latter’s concern with noise. There is a wealth of lit- erature suggesting that loud noise and continuous noise can be harmful to human health. The harm may be psy- chological and result in nervousness and behavioral dis- orders, or it may be physiological and result in impacts as significant as heart disease from the excess produc- tion of adrenaline. Many European nations are attempt- ing to lessen the level of noise, particularly in urban areas. Of course, the same reactions are inherent in the transport systems of North America, and researchers are trying to minimize them. However, the problem and reactions to it are rarely viewed as part of the criteria making transport nonsustainable here. The density of cities and urban activities in Europe undoubtedly makes this factor more significant. Biological Impacts Much attention has been given to the need to protect biological resources from the damage created by trans- port activities (Transportation Research Board 1997). Animals killed along highways [estimated to be between 4 million and 6 million annually (Black 2003)]; rivers and streams polluted and marine animals killed by runoff from highways, runways, and the like; and plants destroyed by emissions are all representative of these biological impacts. Perhaps the most devastating transport incidents in terms of biological resources are the tankers that break up and spew thousands of gallons of oil into the ocean or waterway they are traversing. Marine animals and waterfowl are often the most visible victims of such inci- dents on the evening television news. At the same time we must realize that these are local impacts—severe, but local. We have never lost a species because of an oil spill. It is far more likely that we will eliminate a species of marine life through overfishing than through operations in the transport sector. Although we are not at risk of losing biological species because of the nonsustainability of transport, there is no doubt that transport impacts in this area are significant, as evinced by Forman’s Road Ecology (2003) and the 1997 report Toward a Sustainable Future (Transporta- tion Research Board 1997). The latter report focused on climate change and ecosystem impacts, results of one of the narrower definitions of sustainable transport. Equity Other researchers have looked at the question of what makes the transport system nonsustainable, and in so doing they have focused on the equity of the earlier defi- nitions (Litman 1999; Feitelson 2002). Some of these definitions dealt with the notion that operations on the current transport system should not jeopardize the pos- sibility of future generations satisfying their transport needs. This is not meant to imply that future generations should have the same type of transport system that we have today, although some have read it that way. It sim- ply means that if we are going to continue with a system that is based on finite petroleum reserves, then we should have another fuel available for those future generations. This is what is meant by transgenerational equity. It also is believed by some that if the transgenera- tional argument is acceptable, then the current trans- port system should be equitable. An equitable transport system would be one that is fair, impartial, and just. Contrary to popular belief, it has nothing to do with transport facilities being equally accessible or available for all potential users. To think so is to confuse income policy with transport policy. It is clear that these ques- tions have not been dealt with enough in the transport literature, and perhaps we will get better insight into these aspects of sustainable transport in the near future. IMPACTS OF THE DEFINITIONS ON HOW TRANSPORT SUSTAINABILITY IS ADDRESSED In certain ways the definition of sustainable transport is extremely important. This is particularly so if multina- 3 9SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT: DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSES

tional regions, nations, states, and urban areas allow the definition selected to guide all of their actions in the realm of sustainability. It is unlikely that many areas would do this, but there is some belief that many of the definitions involve controlling problems that are a func- tion of the amount of travel that takes place. Some local areas might see the best approach to sustainable trans- port as one that involves decreasing the level of vehicle miles traveled. The general problem is more complex than a single-variable approach can handle. A more fundamental question would be, what is being done to address the problems preventing the cur- rent system from being sustainable, whether one places the problems in that context or not? In this regard there is reason for some optimism. Diminishing Petroleum Reserves Diminishing petroleum reserves are being addressed in several ways. These are not necessarily planning based, and I will return to that later. Since the 1970s we have had corporate average fuel economy standards and the gas guzzler tax, both intended to encourage motor vehi- cle manufacturers to produce cars that use less fuel per unit of distance traveled. Recently the average miles per gallon has begun to drop, which may be attributed to the increasing number of sport utility vehicles in the vehicle fleet. Nevertheless, the fuel savings since the mid-1980s are notable. Another major improvement in this area is the devel- opment of hybrid (gasoline–electric) vehicles such as the Honda Insight and the Toyota Prius. They significantly increase fuel economy, although not by as much as some may have hoped. Development of alternative fuels is perhaps what most people believe will be necessary in response to diminishing petroleum reserves. On this front the news is not quite so good. Hydrogen is the promising alterna- tive to petroleum-based fuels, but it is still far too expen- sive to produce at a price that will be competitive with gasoline. Ethanol is also not a major alternative now, and it is unlikely to have a major role in the future. Aside from subsidies needed to make it competitive, it uses land that might better be used for food production. The motor vehicle industry has introduced different intelligent transportation system technologies into vehi- cles that should prevent drivers from getting lost. Most notable here is the combination of geographic informa- tion systems and the Global Positioning System, which decreases wasted travel. Planners are not able to do a great deal in this area beyond the obvious attempts to allow certain commer- cial facilities (e.g., grocery stores) to be more ubiqui- tous, which would result in less driving and fuel use. This may require zoning changes in many communities. To the extent that planners have input into the process, they can encourage the development and improvement of public transit facilities that promise to remove some drivers from streets and highways. Programs that encourage carpooling would also be useful in some cities. Global Atmospheric Impacts The principal global atmospheric impacts from the transport sector are emissions of carbon dioxide and the escape of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The former are a significant portion of the carbon dioxide emissions from all sectors. The Kyoto protocol was intended to set lim- its on these emissions for most of the developed nations of the world, but the United States refused to sign on to the protocol. More recently, some European nations have begun to sound as though they will back away from it. Carbon dioxide and some trace gases are collectively referred to as greenhouse gases. It is generally believed by the scientific community that emissions of these gases will cause a warming of the planet and that this in turn will lead to melting of some middle-latitude glaciers and upper-latitude ice cover, and that this melting along with thermal expansion of the oceans will result in a rise in sea level. The ramifications of these changes run the gamut from losses of viable crop production areas to changes in the currents of oceans. Planners and local areas have not done a great deal about this problem as such. If they advocate some of the methods of decreasing fuel use noted above, they will be able to decrease carbon dioxide emissions, which are currently running at about 20 pounds of carbon dioxide per gallon of gasoline burned. California has enacted legislation that will require automobile manufacturers to produce motor vehicles with significantly lower carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. Legal challenges to the statute are likely, but if it can withstand them several eastern states are likely to adopt similar laws. The major concern with regard to CFCs is that they were creating holes in the ozone layer surrounding the planet. The holes increased the amount of ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface, which would lead to problems ranging from disturbances to the ocean food chain to an increase in human skin cancers and eye ail- ments. CFC emissions have plummeted since the end of 1995, when the Montreal protocol brought a swift end to the production of this coolant–solvent. Some CFCs still escape into the atmosphere from older automobiles, but this is probably not significant as we approach the 4 0 INTEGRATING SUSTAINABILITY INTO THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

ninth anniversary of the withdrawal of CFCs from the marketplace. It would be misleading to think that the problems of the ozone layer have been solved. Emissions of CFCs set in place a chain reaction that continues today. We can- not be certain when it will cease, although a couple of decades has been suggested. Local Air Quality Impacts Significant strides have been made in this area because of the fuel emission standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Laws requiring reductions in emis- sion levels have also been enacted. They have been suc- cessful in reducing the levels of nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, and particulates. Levels of CFCs (found in automobile air conditioners) and lead in gasoline have been reduced significantly. Acid deposition is a product of nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide emissions. The transport sector’s contribu- tion is not significant. Although convection does allow some tailpipe emissions to become contributors to what becomes nitric and sulfuric acid “rain” and this in turn leads to biological and economic impacts, this is one problem that seems to be improving. Fatalities and Injuries Significant improvements in the fatalities and injuries area have been made over the past 40 years. Fatalities were in the 50,000-plus range during the 1960s, and we have seen improvements during the past several years that place this number nearer 40,000. Between 1999 and 2004, the fatality rate per 100 mil- lion vehicle miles traveled decreased from 1.50 to 1.46 (www.dot.gov/affairs/dot10605.htm). In March 2004 the United States set a national target of a 33 percent reduc- tion in fatalities in the next 4 years. The reduction is expected to occur through increases in seat belt use, stronger enforcement of drunk driving laws, and hours of service regulations for motor carriers. The target is achievable. Other countries have set more ambitious tar- gets (e.g., Sweden has set a target of zero fatalities), but the action taken by the United States is a significant improvement over prior goals that have been set. Most other countries have not established any goals in this area. Congestion Local planners and engineers have a significant influence on the problem of congestion. The placement of demand- responsive signals, lane designations, highway expansion, parking control, and a host of other factors can be and are controlled at the local scale by these individuals. They may also be influential in getting local establishments to allow more flexible arrival and departure times and therefore enabling a flattening of the a.m. and p.m. travel peaks. In addition, they are able to assist with the creation and maintenance of carpooling and similar operations. Although congestion appears to have almost leveled off in the past few years, there is no reason to assume that this will continue. Therefore, it is likely that some- thing more will have to be done. Interesting technolo- gies are possible in this area (e.g., electronically connected convoys), but expense will probably prevent their appearance in the near term. Noise Transport noise exists in some communities in the United States. The problem is usually combated with the con- struction of sound-absorbing walls or similar structures. In parts of the world where the human landscape was well established before the arrival of motor vehicles, this is not as easy to do. Europe and parts of Asia have sig- nificant noise problems. Some experimental work is being done with sound-absorbing highway pavements, but it remains to be seen whether they will help in areas where the individual cars are relatively quiet but the total noise generated in a traffic stream is significant. The problem is not as bad in North America as in Europe, partly because of the lower density of settle- ment, which enables highways to be placed at some dis- tance from residential areas. Low Mobility Low mobility is as much a problem with sustainable transport as very high mobility. The provision of mobil- ity is a key provision of several definitions of sustainable transport. Localities can increase mobility levels for their residents by making sure that transport facilities are available to all members of the community. They can do this through providing regular urban public transit, rural transit, or specialized transit (for the handicapped and others). Funding for such operations is often difficult to obtain, and a recent work (Ubbels et al. 2004) examines many alternative mechanisms in this area. Biological Impacts Transport facilities and operations can affect animal and plant life. In some cases the impacts involve destruc- 4 1SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT: DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSES

tion of local species or the loss of habitat. In other cases they involve expansion or contraction of species or the introduction of new species that may be harmful to existing organisms in an area. The latter usually occurs with plant introductions in urban and rural areas. Highways have become the major cause of death among numerous animal species, and there is little rea- son to assume that this will end in the near future. While such impacts are often local and not detrimental to an entire species, it is nevertheless desirable that we try to prevent them. Some may argue that they cannot be pre- vented effectively, but numerous local projects involving tunneling under highways to provide a safe route for animal movements would counter this argument. Equity What could be and is being done to foster an equitable transport system now and in the future is not as easy to identify. It should be apparent that anything improving the situation with regard to the aforementioned defini- tions will contribute to transgenerational equity. With regard to the contemporary situation, it is not as clear what can be done, although to accept the transgenera- tional equity argument one must assume that it applies to the current scene as well. Solutions to the various problems noted here would probably move toward a more equitable system, but some might argue this point. Their argument would probably go to the very nature of what is meant by an equitable transport system. FINAL CLARIFICATION AND COMMENT The careful reader will recognize that all of the pro- posed attributes of a sustainable transport system have not been reviewed here. The primary reason is the host of definitions offered. For example, the Mobility 2001 definition includes the ability to communicate, and Transport Canada’s 2003 definition includes the “high- est possible standards for security.” Both may be desir- able, but they are not necessarily components of a sustainable transport system. If we want to strive for a sustainable transport sys- tem, we cannot weigh it down with every possible desir- able attribute. This does not mean that these various other items cannot be pursued under the umbrella of sustainability, but let’s not set the bar so high that in time participants simply throw up their arms and walk away. I am reminded of President Kennedy’s 1962 trans- portation address to Congress, wherein he proposed a program for urban mass transit to stave off what appeared to be the rapidly approaching end of urban transit in the United States. The program put in place would have accomplished this, but soon transit systems were proposed to alleviate congestion, solve air quality problems, provide access for disadvantaged groups, and serve areas outside the original urban area. So many requirements were placed on urban transit that it could hardly satisfy them, and many view those investments today as largely unsuccessful. These systems are still in place, but I would not credit the goals and objectives of their creation for this. My concern is that we will try to do so much with our transport system under the rubric of sustainability that we will make the concept unwork- able, to the detriment of current and future generations. REFERENCES Albion, R. G. 1965. Forests and Sea Power: The Timber Prob- lem of the Royal Navy, 1652–1862. Archon Books, Hamden, Conn. Bell, D., R. Delaney, and R. Lewis. 1997. A Proposal for Sus- tainable Transport: A National Framework. Transport Canada, Ottawa, Ontario. Black, W. R. 1990. Global Warming: Impacts on the Trans- portation Infrastructure. TR News, No. 150, Sept.–Oct., pp. 2–8, 34. Black, W. R. 1996. Sustainable Transportation: A U.S. Per- spective. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 151–159. Black, W. R. 2002. Sustainable Transport and Potential Mobility. European Journal of Transport and Infra- structure Research, Vol. 2, Nos. 3–4, pp. 179–196. Black, W. R. 2003. Transportation: A Geographical Analysis. Guilford Press, New York. Centre for Sustainable Transportation. 1998. Definition and Vision of Sustainable Transportation. Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Daly, H. E. 1992. Steady State Economics. Island Press, Wash- ington, D.C. Deffeyes, K. S. 2001. Hubbert’s Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. Evans, L. 2003. Transportation Safety. In Handbook of Transportation Science (R. W. Hall, ed.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Mass., pp. 67–112. Feitelson, E. 2002. Introducing Environmental Equity Concerns into the Discourse on Sustainable Transport. In Social Change and Sustainable Transport (W. R. Black and P. Nijkamp, eds.), Indiana University Press, Bloomington. Forman, R. (ed.). 2003. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Gordon, D. 1995. Sustainable Transportation: What Do We Mean and How Do We Get There? In Transportation and Energy: Strategies for a Sustainable Transportation System (D. Sperling and S. A. Shaheen, eds.), American 4 2 INTEGRATING SUSTAINABILITY INTO THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Washington, D.C. Greene, D. L., J. L. Hopson, and J. Li. 2003. Running Out of Oil: Analyzing Global Oil Depletion and Transition Through 2050. ORNL/TM-2003/259. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tenn., Oct. Greene, D. L., and M. Wegener. 1997. Sustainable Transport. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 177–190. Heanue, K. 1997. Transportation S&T Strategy Partnership Ini- tiatives. Presented to the National Science and Technology Council Transportation R&D Committee, Sept. 25. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. Third Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers. Work- ing Group I, Feb. 19. Lay, M. G. 1992. Ways of the World: A History of the World’s Roads and of the Vehicles That Used Them. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, N.J. Litman, T. n.d. Sustainable Transportation Indicators. Victo- ria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, British Colom- bia, Canada. Litman, T. 1999. Evaluating Transportation Equity. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Victoria, British Colombia, Canada. www.vtpi.org. Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Charles River Associates, Inc. 2001. Mobility 2001: World Mobility at the End of the Twentieth Century and Its Sustainability. World Business Council for Sustainable Development. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1998. Indicators for the Integration of Environmental Concerns into Transport Policies: Part I, Policy Context and Indicator Development, and Part II, Measured Indicators. Paris. Pearce, D., A. Markandya, and E. S. Barbier. 1989. Blueprint for a Green Economy. Earthscan, London. Pearce, D. W., and J. J. Warford. 1993. World Without End: Economics, Environment, and Sustainable Develop- ment. International Bank for Reconstruction and Devel- opment, Washington, D.C. Schipper, L. 1996. Sustainable Transport: What It Is, Whether It Is, Towards Sustainable Transportation. Presented at Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Develop- ment Conference, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Transport Canada. 2003. Straight Ahead: A Vision for Trans- portation in Canada. Ottawa, Ontario. Transportation Research Board. 1997. Special Report 251: Toward a Sustainable Future: Addressing the Long- Term Effects of Motor Vehicle Transportation on Cli- mate and Ecology. National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Ubbels, B., M. Enoch, S. Potter, and P. Nijkamp. 2004. Unfare Solutions: Local Earmarked Charges to Fund Public Transport. Spon Press, London. United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. 1987. Our Common Future. Oxford Uni- versity Press, Oxford, United Kingdom. World Health Organization. 2001. A 5-Year WHO Strategy for Road Traffic Injury Prevention. WHO/NMH/VIP/ 01.03. Department of Injuries and Violence Prevention, Geneva, Switzerland. 4 3SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORT: DEFINITIONS AND RESPONSES

4 4 What Are the Challenges to Creating Sustainable Transportation? How Can Transportation Systems Become More Sustainable? Martin Wachs, University of California at Berkeley “Sustainability” has become one of the watchwordsgoverning policy deliberations and debates abouttransportation. The intensity with which sustain- able transportation will be debated is likely to increase for decades to come. Like so many other words that have entered our vocabulary, such as “efficiency” and “equity,” the concept is powerful and evokes strong reactions even as it is difficult to define and measure. William Black’s paper has given us an intellectually rich overview of the concept of sustainability and the chal- lenges that the concept poses, and other speakers have given us benchmarks that help us gauge the depth and breadth of the sustainability challenge. My goal is to provide a bridge between the morning overview and the breakout sessions that will follow this talk. More specif- ically, I will assess how transportation planners, policy makers, and public officials can take actions that will move us along a path toward sustainability. Because of the complexity of transportation as a human activity and as a physical network, we need to talk about actions that can be taken in the public sector, by private compa- nies, and by individual citizens and households. Despite the importance of sustainability internationally, I will focus on sustainability in the United States to simplify the discussion and in recognition of our personal roles and organizations. I will draw on some insights from experience overseas. On balance, the ability to travel and to ship goods at low cost over long distances, as provided through a complex of transportation systems and networks, has enhanced humankind’s economic, social, and personal well-being. It has been a major factor in increasing access to health care, education, employment, and recre- ation, and improved access to a wider range of con- sumer goods has dramatically improved standards of living all over the globe. However, we are genuinely con- cerned about sustainability because of the growing dis- parities between those who have achieved these benefits and those who have not yet but certainly hope to in the future. The differences are especially noticeable because they exist at the same time that many are becoming aware that the worldwide stock of energy resources pro- viding for mobility is being depleted at a rapid rate. We wish to reduce reliance on those limited resources while expecting increased mobility for a large proportion of the world’s population. At exactly the same time that concern is growing with respect to the distributional aspects of mobility and the long-term depletion of energy resources, the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (GHGs) is growing ominously, and scientific evidence has persuaded most of us that this is causally related to global energy consumption. Also, the negative byproducts of mobility in the form of air and water pollution, contamination of land, and the accu- mulation solid wastes are causing many to worry that the benefits of mobility may be less available to future generations, while the costs of today’s mobility may be escalating dramatically. To acknowledge these concerns in no way requires us to belittle the significance of the benefits of transport systems. The sustainability movement is a search for balance, and the attainment of balance between mobil- ity and sustainability is an enormous challenge. While some will emphasize one side of the scale more than the

other, it is simply too easy to dismiss the importance of mobility in favor of sustainability and similarly too easy to deny the unsustainability of current global patterns of mobility and energy use. The real challenge lies in the recognition that both are critically important policy goals. The European notion of “sustainable mobility” suggests a search for balance, and that is why we are here. Our community is by no means unanimous in its perceptions of either the benefits of mobility or the costs of a mobility-dependent society or even about the defin- ition of sustainability, but sustainability is here to stay as a subject of public debate and policy making. I hope we can make a contribution to clarifying that debate, but I hope even more strongly that we can influence the development of policy through our discussions at this conference. PARALLELS WITH EARLIER ENVIRONMENTAL AND AIR QUALITY MOVEMENTS, AND A PREDICTION Everything we do is in many ways the direct product of what came earlier. The current movement for sustainable transportation is not at all discontinuous with the history of transportation policy. We should, therefore, try to learn from that history. For example, in the late 1960s in the United States we were at the height of the national free- way building period that has now ended, and we were just starting to formulate a national program of capital investment in public transit. We tried at that time to find the right balance between mobility and environmental concerns, and the process was not at all easy. Imagine for the moment that mobility had grown as much as it has since 1970 and that we had not as a nation adopted the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). While we have certainly not eliminated the neg- ative environmental impacts of transportation, our soci- ety is better off as a result of the passage of NEPA, even if we can think of many shortcomings in the NEPA process. Remember that NEPA was highly controversial, and many in the transportation community thought at the time that it would destroy our effort to create a more mobile society. In retrospect that fear was certainly not realized. As a result of NEPA, which has proved to be enormously robust by surviving thousands of legal and political challenges, we now incorporate environmental impacts of transportation more explicitly into the plan- ning process at every stage. Transportation agencies employ environmental specialists and engage in commu- nity interaction much earlier in every planning, design, and engineering activity. NEPA helped to create a bal- ance that in retrospect appears far more appropriate and less revolutionary than it did at the time. To a large num- ber of people, the environmental impacts of many trans- portation projects are still intrusive and unacceptable; the law has been dramatic and its results have been extensive, but it has redirected and not prevented invest- ments in improved mobility. Imagine for the moment that mobility had grown as much as it has since the first air quality act amendments that affected automobile travel. In looking back on what has happened with respect to air quality over the past 30 or 40 years, most agree that we are much better off today than we would have been were automobiles producing as much pollution as they did in 1970. While we have certainly not eliminated urban air pollution and its health impacts, and our standards only recently have become more demanding because of improved under- standing of the health effects of certain pollutants, few question that society is better off as a result of regula- tions that control air pollutant emissions and concentra- tions. The series of legislative actions taken with respect to air quality, like those associated with NEPA, were highly contentious. Many false starts were made, and onerous regulations were enacted and then amended. But, once again, contrary to the expectations of many, the results of NEPA and of air quality regulation have been enormous. They have redirected and not prevented investments that have improved mobility. Imagine for the moment that it is now 2040 and that personal mobility and goods movement have grown as much as they were predicted to grow in both developed and developing countries. Looking back on what hap- pened with respect to sustainability, I venture to say that we could not in 2040 imagine what the world would be like had the concept of sustainability not been acted on in the interim—for example, had levels of energy used per unit of transportation in 2004 prevailed up until this date. It will probably have proven impossible to provide the world with completely sustainable transportation, and new knowledge will have caused us to develop new demands and limits that we cannot conceive of in 2004. Nevertheless, the contentiousness of today’s debates will have paled, and attention to improved sustainability will have redirected but not prevented investments in improved mobility. AWARENESS OF SUSTAINABILITY IS GROWING, BUT THE UNITED STATES IS LAGGING BEHIND Though sustainable mobility is becoming a more widely shared goal, we are still in the early stages of organizing societal action toward meeting that goal. It would be wrong to think that we have little or no interest in or commitment to sustainability. Actions are being taken despite strong differences of opinion and some confu- sion. However, society is complex, and that complexity is one of the most important sources of our apparent 4 5WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES TO CREATING SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION?

inertia. Furthermore, sustainability remains a broad and vague concept, and that contributes to our inertia. Within the European Union there is a strong impera- tive to achieve the 8 percent GHG reduction targets set by the Kyoto protocol, and some countries have embraced the goal to exceed the Kyoto targets by quite a margin. In contrast, of course, the United States has refused to sign the Kyoto accords. Transportation-based emissions in the United States (about one-third of all emissions of GHGs) are rising at about 3 percent per year, while emissions from residential and commercial sources are rising even more rapidly (Banister and Pucher 2003). Even if these trends cannot be reversed fully, their direction and speed must be changed, and I hope that we can proceed into the workshops unified in this commitment. Despite the reluctance of the federal government to take responsibility for GHG reduction, there has been much activity in the United States in pursuit of sustain- able mobility. A recent survey by staff members at the Volpe Transportation Center found that as of May 31, 2001, a surprisingly large number of states—25 states plus Puerto Rico—had initiated the process of develop- ing statewide GHG reduction plans and that 19 had completed those plans. In addition, 134 cities and coun- ties had, by that date, initiated voluntary GHG planning activities, which, at a minimum, include commitments to pass supportive resolutions, conduct baseline esti- mates, develop action plans, and monitor results (Lyons et al. 2003). After reviewing this national pattern, the authors studied a subsample of these programs in depth. The following were among the most interesting and use- ful conclusions with implications for our discussion: • Local and regional agencies often act out of the realization that they stand to suffer damage themselves from global climate change unless trends are reversed. The recognition that they might themselves suffer from rising water levels, negative impacts on tourism, and damage to forests was often associated with interest in developing plans for GHG reduction. • Local governments that adopted a formal approach, with goals, deadlines, inventories, and fore- casts, tended to be more effective than those that were well meaning but less focused. • Planning was more often undertaken where GHG reduction was seen by state leaders to contribute to other ongoing state plans and programs, such as eco- nomic development and smart growth. In other words, where there was a strong tradition of environmentally responsible planning and the perception of complemen- tarity with other planning efforts, sustainability plan- ning had a better chance of being adopted. • Planning was far more often undertaken where one or more political champions took a leadership role. Virtually all the successful plans occurred in places where mayors, governors, legislators, or other leaders championed their development and saw them through to completion. • Transportation agencies were rarely the initiators or the lead agencies in preparing such plans. More often the lead agencies had responsibilities for energy, envi- ronment, or land use. While transportation agencies were often not in the lead and often lagged behind other sectors, the most successful plans resulted from multi- agency collaboration. It would be a mistake to conclude that there is little or no corporate interest in a more sustainable future. Much work is taking place in the private sector. As one example, for the past 4 years under the sponsorship of the World Business Council for Sustainable Develop- ment, 12 leading international automotive and energy companies have worked together to consider how global mobility patterns might evolve through 2030 and beyond and have attempted to identify strategies to make transport more sustainable. Though we may remain skeptical about the motivations of these corpo- rations, the seven goals identified by the study team are completely consistent with the view of sustainability enumerated by William Black in the opening paper for this conference: • To reduce conventional emissions from transport so that they do not constitute a significant public health concern anywhere in the world, • To reduce GHG emissions from transport to sus- tainable levels, • To reduce significantly the number of transport- related deaths and injuries worldwide, • To reduce transport-related noise, • To mitigate traffic congestion, • To narrow “mobility divides” that exist within all countries and between the richest and poorest countries, and • To improve mobility opportunities for the general population in developed and developing societies. The report Mobility 2030 (World Business Council for Sustainable Development 2004), now in the final stages of preparation for release, addressed all of these goals, but at different levels of depth and specificity. It gave greatest emphasis to and its most specific recommenda- tions address power train technology, fuels, and energy issues. This is certainly understandable given the compa- nies that have been involved. Still, the fact that a study took place and that a comprehensive set of sustainability goals has been developed by the companies is itself an indication that sustainability can become a major factor in private-sector planning, research, and marketing. 4 6 INTEGRATING SUSTAINABILITY INTO THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

TAMING THE COMPLEXITY OF SUSTAINABILITY: SETTING PRIORITIES Societies do not do well with complexity, nor in all like- lihood do workshop conferences like this one. We need to find a way of reducing our discussion to manageable components, just as we need to find ways of enacting policies through manageable steps and workable com- ponents. We need to acknowledge complex relation- ships among the elements while focusing on them one at a time. We only seem to be able to enact laws and regu- lations, to take actions, and to set priorities one bite at a time. Even if we limit our discussion to the United States, which is in itself an enormous oversimplification of what needs to be done, we will not be able to address simultaneously all the dimensions of sustainability dis- cussed so far at this meeting. We certainly will not be able to do so at all levels of government and within the private corporate sector and at the household level. Yet eventually sustainable transportation will require responses on all those dimensions and from all those actors. I propose that our workshop discussions consider priorities for the coming decade while acknowledging that priorities will certainly change over time. We should consider how the various actors might con- tribute to sustainability most productively over that period. I have tried to illustrate the nature of the com- plexity we are facing in Figure 1, which presents the two dimensions of sustainability that I just mentioned. I rec- ognize, of course, that the figure is a gross oversimplifi- cation of anything that might happen in the real world, but I still think it might facilitate dialogue in a number of ways. One way of using a matrix like this would be to assign priority weights to a particular intersection of actors and elements. For example, one of us might think that the depletion of energy reserves is extremely impor- tant and that it should fall to the national government to play a large role, so a high score might be placed in the box where the national government row intersects the energy reserves column. Similarly, one might think that traffic congestion is an important public policy problem but that it is not really important to global sus- tainability and is primarily a problem that should be addressed by local and regional governments. This might be reflected by a moderate score in the box formed by the intersection of the traffic congestion col- umn and the local government row, while zeros are entered in some of the cells elsewhere in that column. Another way in which a matrix could help us orga- nize our thoughts would be to fill into each box a few actions or strategies that might be most effective if taken by a particular actor (row) with respect to a sustainabil- ity element (column). For example, we might think that pricing would be an appropriate strategy by which state governments (row) could address congestion (column), while we might think that traffic safety (column) might best be addressed at the national level (row) through regulation of vehicles. I offer this suggestion as a way of grabbing hold of a monster while recognizing that the issue remains enor- mously complex and that the elements of the matrix are indeed highly interrelated. 4 7WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES TO CREATING SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION? * D ep let ion of En erg y R es ou rce s * G en era tio n o f G ree nh ou se G as es * C on ve nti on al Air Po llu tio n * La nd U se & Ur ba n F or m * W ate r P oll uti on * So lid W as tes * Tr aff ic Sa fet y * C on ge sti on * N ois e * Individuals * Families * Organizations (companies & institutions) Local Regional State National * Governments FIGURE 1 Complexity of sustainable transportation.

KEY QUESTIONS DETERMINING THE FUTURE OF SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION Indicators of Sustainability A prerequisite to progress toward sustainable mobility is the development of a set of quantitative indicators by which to measure progress over time. American society already uses a wide variety of quantitative indicators of our well-being, and policy makers have become accus- tomed to responding to notable shifts in indicators over time. The best examples of indicators on which we rely in policy making undoubtedly are economic indicators. Such variables as unemployment rate, consumer price index, housing starts, and numerous others are used reg- ularly to measure current conditions and changes in conditions over time. Interpretations of patterns among these indices differ, of course, and such differences are the basis of policy debates. Indeed, the differences in interpretation and the differences in policy recommen- dations suggested by the indicators are what make them most valuable. Indicators must be carefully chosen on the basis of their long-term policy relevance, inter- pretability, and implications for the collection of rele- vant and accurate information. If useful sustainability and mobility indicators can be developed, they might eventually be used to test and model the likely impacts of different policies on indicator values and thereby to interpret their impacts on sustainability. In the work- shops we might agree that sustainability indicators are necessary to the development of policies that promote sustainable mobility and that we might then concentrate on the nature and content of appropriate indicators. The matrix introduced earlier makes it clear that some dimensions of sustainability, like GHGs, are most relevant because of their effects at the global scale. Oth- ers, like noise, can really only be measured and con- trolled effectively at the local scale. It would be helpful for our workshops to recommend indicators that oper- ate at different levels and to discuss the sources of data that might be used to operationalize them. In the short term, given the current state of evolution of transporta- tion policy, the most important indicators of sustain- ability are those that could be operationalized at the state and national levels. Those indicators would deal with levels of mobility, energy and resource consump- tion in transportation, and the production of GHGs and other waste streams. Technological Changes Most observers of transportation planning and policy agree that most of the progress made in the past 40 years toward lessening the environmental damage done by transportation has resulted primarily from technologi- cal change. Dramatic reductions in tailpipe emissions per mile of driving have led to equally dramatic improvements in air quality in some of our most pol- luted metropolitan areas even as the number of trips and vehicle miles of travel have grown substantially. Fleet fuel economy has improved as well, though per- haps less dramatically, and improvement has been slow- ing in recent years. These technological changes, of course, are not independent of political decision mak- ing. They are the result of regulation, mostly by the fed- eral government but in some cases also by states, particularly states like California, which have had severe environmental problems to address. Most believe that changes in vehicle technology and fuels have been more influential than changes induced by regional trans- portation planning or changes in individual and house- hold behavior. It follows that government regulations affecting technology have been far more influential and effective than government planning requirements or ini- tiatives to change travel or residential location behavior. Should we, as a group, conclude that past patterns are a good predictor of the future, and therefore that the most promising approach to sustainability is through techno- logical change? Or should we conclude that the attain- ment of sustainability requires a dramatic escalation of change and that technology alone will be unable to move us onto a path toward a sustainable transporta- tion system? Some will attempt to set limits on the role of techno- logical change in approaching sustainability on the basis of moral judgments and positions that are strongly held for ideological reasons. I believe that technology will play a major role in sustainability policy because we are able to identify changes in technology that will improve mobil- ity and enhance the quality of life while reducing the foot- print left by human activity on the natural environment. As long as this is the case, technology should and will play a central role in the pursuit of sustainability. But there are limits to our ability to rely on techno- logical change. We must note that some of the potential benefits of improved engine efficiency and better fuel economy have been lost because manufacturers have produced and consumers have opted to buy vehicles that have grown larger and that include many energy-con- suming options. The benefits of improved technology have, to some extent, been converted into larger, faster, and more luxurious vehicles rather than into vehicles having more modest performance features and dramat- ically improved fuel efficiency. Many American manu- facturers, instead of focusing on smaller cars that are dramatically more fuel efficient, are promoting their forthcoming entries into the market for hybrid vehicles as bigger and more luxurious cars that get the same fuel economy as smaller cars. 4 8 INTEGRATING SUSTAINABILITY INTO THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

Regulation Versus Market Forces One of the ongoing debates in American policy making is whether market forces are sufficient to bring about technological and behavioral changes needed to achieve environmentally responsible mobility and eventually to approach sustainability. Clearly, for example, as supplies of energy become more limited prices will shift, and this will induce changes in consumption patterns and tech- nologies. Key questions concern whether market forces will be sufficient or whether they need to be coupled with federal and state regulations. In the past, the corporate average fuel economy regulations that were part of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and the tailpipe emissions standards and National Ambient Air Quality Standards required by the Clean Air Act Amendments have been controversial because they have attempted to force technological change. The California Air Resources Board, for example, last month introduced draft regula- tions in compliance with the state’s S.B. 1493 that would require a reduction in vehicle carbon dioxide emissions starting in 2009 and amounting to a 30 percent reduc- tion in new vehicles by 2015. The New York Times (Hakim 2004) recently reported that New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Connecticut are considering the adoption of similar regulations. The appropriateness of direct government regulation versus greater reliance on market forces is a topic that could lead to some lively discussions in the workshop sessions. The case for centralized regulation has been well made over and over again by environmental and political philosophers such as Garrett Hardin and Aldo Leopold, who have shown that regulation is needed wherever resources are owned or controlled in common on behalf of communities. While many government reg- ulations have been highly imperfect and some can be shown to have induced inefficiencies and inequities, it seems inevitable that regulation will play a central role in our quest for sustainable mobility. The challenge before us is to devise regulations that complement other approaches to achieving sustainability and that mini- mize unintended negative consequences. A great deal of analysis is needed in support of a program of regulation that produces a substantial excess of benefits over costs. Direct Regulation of Travel Behavior In America, we have found it politically feasible to reg- ulate vehicles and fuels, and these regulations have cer- tainly in turn affected consumer behavior. However, we have shied away from measures that were seen to be regulating households and individuals more directly. Under the requirements of the Clean Air Act Amend- ments, government attempted to regulate commuter choices through the Employee Commute Options Pro- gram and, for example, attempted to “cash out” free parking. While these initiatives have often been techni- cally successful at a limited scale in improving vehicle occupancies and shifting commuters in measurable numbers to public transit or carpools, corporate and political objections to such programs have caused them to be viewed widely as less than successful, and in most cases eventually they have been abandoned. Should we, as a group, conclude that the attainment of sustainable mobility in the future requires more vigorous and direct regulation of travel decisions at the household and indi- vidual level, or should we conclude that such an approach is likely to be politically unacceptable in the United States for some time to come? It is my expecta- tion that for the foreseeable future it will prove more appropriate and more feasible for political reasons to regulate vehicles, fuels, and emissions than to regulate personal or household choice making. Still, we need to learn to be more clever and subtle in our use of regulation to achieve intended social pur- poses. Jonathan Levine’s research, for example, shows that more conservative Americans often assert that it is “market forces” and “personal preferences” that lead us to prefer low-density single-family homes in areas characterized by single land uses. He disagrees, pointing out that often market forces and household preferences actually would lead to higher densities and communities consisting to a far greater extent of mixed land uses except for the fact that they are excluded by zoning and subdivision regulations prohibiting those land uses and requiring the traditional American suburban land use patterns. Those regulations were in many cases put into place decades ago to keep residences away from heavy industries. Today they inhibit rather than enhance our ability to achieve more current versions of appropriate land use mixes that support sustainability. The lesson to be learned is that regulation must be sensitive to the need for a range of human choices. This may suggest that the most appropriate regulatory strategies are those enhancing our choices among alternatives by focusing on performance measures related to policy outcomes rather than those limiting our choices directly (Levine et al. 2005). Pricing The use of pricing to influence travel behavior is closely related to the direct regulation of behavior, since one of the most direct ways of regulating behavior is through the setting of prices. Many have advocated for decades that pricing transportation programs differently could be among the most promising ways of approaching sus- tainability. Empirical evidence, particularly from inter- 4 9WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES TO CREATING SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION?

national experience, supports this expectation. Taxes on new vehicles in Europe and some Asian countries do result in lower vehicle ownership rates, even where income levels exceed those in the United States. While vehicle ownership rates are growing in most of those countries, they remain substantially lower than in the United States. Consistently higher taxes on vehicle fuels in many other countries continue to be associated with the purchase of smaller and more fuel-efficient vehicles than in the United States. And where vehicles and fuels are more expensive, higher proportions of trips are made on public transit and by bicycle and walking than are typical in the United States, even where incomes are comparable. Yet American policy makers have been reluctant to attempt to price the externalities of trans- portation systems directly or even indirectly, or to use taxes as policy instruments for changing transportation behavior. Should we, as a group, conclude that more vigorous pricing of transportation is necessary and appropriate to bring about sustainable transportation, or are we reluctant to promote that direction of change in American policy? I expect that pricing strategies are becoming more politically acceptable than they have been in the past, for three reasons that I have developed elsewhere. First, there is an increasing need for revenues in support of transportation programs as traditional reliance on the fuel tax produces reduced revenue in relation to perceived needs. Second, the increasingly widespread deployment of a variety of automated and computerized mechanisms by which to collect pay- ments, such as FasTrack and E-ZPass, is making it phys- ically easier to collect transportation system use-related charges in a variety of situations. Finally, growing famil- iarity with prices and collection mechanisms is reducing concerns on the part of the public that such approaches are improper or that they constitute violations of the privacy of the traveler (Wachs 2005). Individual Education There is an enormous variation in travel behavior within American society, and we may conclude that this varia- tion results, at least in part, from widely different atti- tudes. A few, for reasons that vary from personal preference to deep moral commitment, have chosen to be carless. These individuals rely much more heavily than others on public transit, walking, and cycling. Oth- ers, who would not think of rejecting automobiles, own motorized vehicles but consciously choose fuel-efficient ones such as hybrid cars. Where such behavior does not unduly complicate their lives, they cycle, walk, or use public transit for trips. Still others own multiple fuel- inefficient vehicles and regard it as irrational, futile, or unnecessary to alter behavior through direct personal action when public policy does not demand or reward such behavior. This variation in attitudes, commitment, and behavior is in need of deeper study and analysis. Some believe that public education is the key to sustain- ability. Those holding this position cite precedents in other areas of American life for their belief that educa- tion can be enormously effective: the reduction of smok- ing, the rise in recycling, the reduction in drinking and driving, the adoption of “safe sex.” Some promote “social marketing” or education as a key to the eventual sustainability of our transportation system. They argue that Americans are bombarded with advertising that, for economic reasons, encourages them to purchase larger and less fuel-efficient vehicles and to use them for more and more reasons (McGovern 2004). In contrast, in parts of Europe and Australia and most recently in experiments in American cities such as Port- land, Oregon (TravelSmart), willing households have had their travel choices “audited” by trained outsiders. Household members were helped to reorganize their weekly travel to take greater advantage of public tran- sit, form trip chains that reduce the number of automo- bile cold starts, combine the trips of household members that were previously made independently of one another, and forgo some trips entirely. Some see this type of educational activity as promising for at least two reasons. The first is the direct shift in travel behavior toward sustainable mobility that they hope it will help to bring about. The second is the fact that education will, perhaps more gradually, contribute to changes in public policy by making more aggressive approaches to regulation more acceptable in the political arena than they are now. Others, of course, think that well-mean- ing experiments in consumer education are likely to result in little or no change in travel at the scale of our entire society. Still others consider such an approach to be completely misguided and doomed to fail, or worse, to interfere with individual freedom in a democratic society. Should we, as a group, conclude that wide- spread consumer education is one of the more promis- ing approaches to the attainment of sustainable mobility, or should we conclude that this view is well meaning but likely to be ineffective in the foreseeable future? Regional Planning In the United States regional transportation planning has long emphasized the construction of transportation capacity. As environmental, especially air quality, and social and economic impacts have become increasingly important concerns in regional planning, our long-range transportation plans become more sophisticated, but they continue to emphasize capital investments in facilities. 5 0 INTEGRATING SUSTAINABILITY INTO THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

In other parts of the world, however, the nature of regional transportation plans is changing more funda- mentally. For example, regional long-range transporta- tion plans have been formulated that emphasize a long-term commitment to sustainability as a first princi- ple in Sydney and Melbourne, Australia, and in a large number of European cities. Such plans go far beyond proposing new capital investments in corridors where traffic volume is likely to grow. Some of these plans pro- mote the redevelopment of older, formerly industrial or military sites into high-density, mixed-use commercial and residential centers in proximity to public transit facilities. Many have adopted approaches to regional planning intended to reduce the geographic expansion of metropolitan areas at their edges while promoting higher densities at their cores. Some have set specific, and in a few cases ambitious, goals with regard to changes in modal split or decreased rates of growth in automobile travel and in the generation of GHGs. Often these plans incorporate major capital investments in travel modes other than the automobile. In a number of cases, emulated in a few notable plan- ning activities in the United States, the effort to develop regional plans has identified threatened or sensitive nat- ural areas and then worked toward plans that would accommodate forecast growth while protecting those environments. In other cases, planning models were used, as they have rarely been in the United States, to “backcast” rather than to forecast. That is, certain envi- ronmental and travel goals were developed for the tar- get year of the plan, and the models were used to test alternative policies and consequently to select policies that would lead to the desired outcomes (Wachs 2000). Should we, as a group, conclude that regional plan- ning is of potentially great value in achieving sustain- ability and recommend that the regional planning process be substantially overhauled in support of sus- tainability? The answer is not at all obvious. In the past, planners and policy makers have urged that regional plans pay much more attention to transportation sys- tems management, travel demand management, mainte- nance and renewal of the existing capital plant, and the systematic inclusion of telecommunications innovations through a transition to intelligent transportation sys- tems. Despite such urgings and many revisions to plan- ning regulations included in the national highway program, progress in reforming the regional transporta- tion planning process has been limited. We appear to be unable to achieve the dramatic institutional changes that would be needed to make regional planning more capa- ble of addressing sustainability. Some of us may argue that a number of factors—the inertia in our existing planning apparatus, the inevitability of some of our population and travel trends, and a reluctance to embrace aggressive regulation of the use of land and of travel choices—make it far less cost-effective in the near term to embrace regional planning as a sustainability strategy than to focus on technological change. Conclusion In this paper I have offered several questions that I hope can help structure the discussion that is to follow in our workshops. The questions are summarized as follows: • Can progress toward sustainability in transporta- tion be achieved in the United States primarily through technological changes in vehicles, power trains, and fuels? Is it cost-effective to rely primarily on technolog- ical approaches? • Can changes in statewide and metropolitan plan- ning contribute in a meaningful way to sustainability? Are changes needed in land use and urban form at the regional and neighborhood levels? Is basic planning reform feasible to the extent that regional planning can contribute to sustainable mobility? • Can American society, through education and marketing, achieve a sufficient shift to more sustainable modes of transportation, including walking, cycling, and public transit use, to warrant an increasing focus on such strategies in our approach to sustainability? • Should pricing be used to a much greater extent to internalize the externalities of transportation in order to approach a more sustainable transportation system? • Can American transportation policy adopt more direct approaches to regulating travel choices and behavior? If such approaches are adopted, can they pro- duce sufficient progress toward sustainable mobility to make them worth the costs of undertaking? Answers to these questions will be key to the sustain- ability debate that will characterize American trans- portation policy for many years to come. The questions may have answers applying in the short term different from those applying in the longer run. At one level, they can be answered rather superficially. It is, for example, possible to respond that the attainment of sustainable mobility will require progress simultaneously in all of the areas delineated by these questions. But it is not real- istic to think that society can forge ahead with equal vigor and with equal probability for success in all of these dimensions. At the other extreme, it is equally pos- sible to conclude that most progress made to date has been the result of technological innovation and change and that it is logical to presume that technological change is the only promising path by which to approach sustainable mobility in America. In all likelihood, these two extreme positions are both unsatisfactory. Selecting the right mix of approaches is in the end a complex tech- 5 1WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES TO CREATING SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION?

nical, political, and moral question. It requires that we consider what is feasible given American political orga- nization and values, but it also requires us to balance what is internally feasible against what is likely to be happening in the rest of the world. I doubt that we will be able to come up with final answers to these questions in the discussions that fol- low, and I expect that we will reconsider these questions many times over the coming decades. I hope that for- mulating the questions in these ways is a useful contri- bution to the debate that will follow in our workshops and in many other forums to come. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I benefited greatly from comments made on an earlier draft of this paper by Jennifer Dill, Richard Gilbert, John Pucher, and Daniel Sperling. I owe several of the ideas contained in this draft to their helpful suggestions. REFERENCES Banister, D., and J. Pucher. 2003. Can Sustainable Transport Be Made Acceptable? Presented at the 2nd Sustainable Transport in Europe and Links and Liaisons with America Focus Group Meeting on Institutions, Regula- tions, and Markets in Transportation, Santa Barbara, Calif., May 19–20. Hakim, D. 2004. Much of Coastal U.S. May Follow Califor- nia on Car Emissions. New York Times, June 11, online edition. Levine, J., A. Inam, and G.-W. Torng. 2005. A Choice-Based Rationale for Land Use and Transportation Alterna- tives: Evidence from Boston and Atlanta. Journal of Planning Education and Research, Vol. 24, No. 3, pp. 317–330. Lyons, W. M., S. Peterson, and K. Noerager. 2003. Green- house Gas Reduction Through State and Local Trans- portation Planning. Report DOT-VNTSC-RSPA-03-02. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Cam- bridge, Mass. McGovern, E. 2004. Adopting Social Marketing Programs: Can They Help Us Decide to Leave the Car at Home? Manuscript submitted to Transportation. Wachs, M. 2000. Refocusing Transportation Planning for the 21st Century. In Conference Proceedings 20: Refocus- ing Transportation Planning for the 21st Century, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., pp. 190–193. Wachs, M. 2005. Then and Now: The Evolution of Congestion Pricing in Transportation and Where We Stand Today. In Conference Proceedings 34: International Perspectives on Road Pricing, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., pp. 63–72. World Business Council for Sustainable Development. 2004. Mobility 2030: Meeting the Challenges to Sustainability. www.wbcsd.org/web/publications/mobility/mobility- full.pdf. 5 2 INTEGRATING SUSTAINABILITY INTO THE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

Next: Committee Member Biographical Information »
Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB Conference Proceedings 37: Integrating Sustainability into the Transportation Planning Process summarizes a July 11-13, 2004, conference in Baltimore, Maryland, that examined whether and how sustainability objectives can be introduced into the planning process for surface transportation facilities and operations. The report explores issues associated with sustainability, the vision of a sustainable transportation system, the state of the practice, and strategies for integrating sustainability concepts into transportation planning.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!